So it looks like a few folks wanted me to elaborate on issue #2 in my last post regarding why I ultimately moved on from being and Orthodox catechumen to a Anglican Catholic.

Issue #2 was regarding my thought that certain important doctrines tended to be underemphasized in Eastern Orthodoxy, and to elaborate I primarily had imputed justification and the substutionary atonement in mind. I know these issues have debated ad nauseam at this forum--and I have participated in some of this discussions over the years--which is why I didn't specifically identify these in my previous post.

The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles. That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.

POTM nomination.

I guess, but you realize you are considered to be among the first Protestants around here?

1) Fixed your sentence for you. Not trying to be a snob, I just edited it for the sake of clarification.

2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 05:15:35 PM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles. That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.

Don't buy that triumphalist nonsense. They might be outside of the Church but they still love God and do good deeds. That is defininitely an act of Holy Spirit. Boundaries of the Church are not boundaries of Grace.

2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.

Do you mind explaining your exasperation?

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.

Do you mind explaining your exasperation?

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth. 2. It is definitely heretical. 3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth. 2. It is definitely heretical. 3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.

Yeah, I don't buy 3. Never really have. Probably never will.

Really, I don't really believe in many disembodied universals, although I know we talk in such ways at times, but when people start getting serious about hating them or whatever, I have a bit of pause.

This would go to a thread which I believe Rufus showed up as a nominalist of sorts. Wish he would post more. Guess in the day to day I am also a nominalist of sorts as I believe most people I've encountered are.

Guess in a stupid way, I would agree with Kaestner: Es gibt nichts Gutes ausser: man tut es.* I would agree with the more sinister turn of the expression.

*My dumb attempt to translate it: There is no good, save that which man would.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 06:07:47 PM by orthonorm »

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.

That tremor felt throughout the universe was me agreeing with Orthonorm.

I wouldn't say that we have to agree in every detail. We don't all agree on toll houses, extent of relations with other religious traditions, 6 day creationism, etc. We aren't the Borg. The Church Fathers certainly don't universally agree on everything. That is not to say that we can diverge off from what the Church teaches, but there are some grey areas that have not been dogmatized.

Exactly, the idea that there are no disagreements in the Eastern Orthodox church is silly. It's one thing I realized the more I explored Orthodoxy, there are real differences over issues like ecumenism and engagement with the modern world. They simply aren't as prominent as in Protestantism.

In Anglicanism what is and is not dogma is ultimately found in the Creeds and the Bible, the Church is to teach, administer sacraments and make disciples, but can't bind souls to doctrines not found in the Scriptures or reasonably deduced from them. Those things are adiaphora, at liberty to be disputed. In practice it isn't that different from the Eastern Orthodox Church, which refuses to dogmatize things such as the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Dormition of the Mother of God, and so on. What's different for Orthodoxy from Anglicanism? In my estimation because most Orthodox have lived under authoritarian, traditionalist societies where questioning anything was heavily discouraged. In American society individualism is encouraged: perhaps to a fault. But its not right to pretend that one cannot disagree with other believers about secondary matters and still be orthodox.

I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.

That tremor felt throughout the universe was me agreeing with Orthonorm.

I wouldn't say that we have to agree in every detail. We don't all agree on toll houses, extent of relations with other religious traditions, 6 day creationism, etc. We aren't the Borg. The Church Fathers certainly don't universally agree on everything. That is not to say that we can diverge off from what the Church teaches, but there are some grey areas that have not been dogmatized.

Exactly, the idea that there are no disagreements in the Eastern Orthodox church is silly. It's one thing I realized the more I explored Orthodoxy, there are real differences over issues like ecumenism and engagement with the modern world. They simply aren't as prominent as in Protestantism.

In Anglicanism what is and is not dogma is ultimately found in the Creeds and the Bible, the Church is to teach, administer sacraments and make disciples, but can't bind souls to doctrines not found in the Scriptures or reasonably deduced from them. Those things are adiaphora, at liberty to be disputed. In practice it isn't that different from the Eastern Orthodox Church, which refuses to dogmatize things such as the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Dormition of the Mother of God, and so on. What's different for Orthodoxy from Anglicanism? In my estimation because most Orthodox have lived under authoritarian, traditionalist societies where questioning anything was heavily discouraged. In American society individualism is encouraged: perhaps to a fault. But its not right to pretend that one cannot disagree with other believers about secondary matters and still be orthodox.

I don't recall Henry VIII tolerating a lot of questioning.

When it comes to dogma and Creeds, no, the Orthodox do not disagree. That's why we have dogma and Creeds.

We don't dogmatize the IC because we don't believe it. Or rather, because it never happened.

The Dormition isn't dogmatized, but try to find an Orthodox who doesn't believe in it.

And many of those "authoritarian, traditionalist societies where questioning anything was heavily discouraged" in which many Orthodox lived were not Orthodox societies (the Caliphate, Turkocratia, Polish Commonwealth, etc.), in which they had to have a good reason to go against the grain. Especially when it often was a matter of life or death. Doesn't leave much for the luxury of speculation.

In Anglicanism, what isn't a "secondary matter"?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Dormition isn't dogmatized, but try to find an Orthodox who doesn't believe in it.

Given that the Dormition of the Mother of God is one of the twelve highest feasts, and of an importance of rank among them that a two-week fast of the same rigor as that of Great Lent is appointed for it, it would be a tad difficult for an honest Orthodox to say "I don't believe in it".

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion. I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing. Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054

I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy. I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine. On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West. It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy. I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine. On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West. It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me. The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners. If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy. I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine. On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West. It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me. The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners. If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

I don't know how there can be Truth that isn't exclusivist. Something is either truth, partially true or completely untrue. Partial truth is still untrue, just in differing degrees. Some is fatal, some is not. Orthodoxy isn't like fundamentalist evangelicalism that states if you don't believe what they believe you are going to hell. Instead, Orthodoxy states, this is what is Truth, but it leaves the ramification of what happens if you do or do not follow it up to God. I don't understand how that can be uncharitable

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy. I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine. On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West. It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me. The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners. If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

Trisagion's last sentence is how it has also been explained to me by real people, but I have read what Daedelus1138 is stating by other Orthodox individuals...on this forum as well as others. I'm the sole Orthodox person in my entire family, but I have many family members whose relationship with God is exemplary. But, I confess that I wonder how much more-so that relationship would be if they were within the community of believers who I do believe has access to the fullness of truth and worship. At the end of the day, I believe that Orthodox individuals would be wise to remember that if we make the claim that the Orthodox Church is THE Church, containing within her the fullness of truth and right worship, then we had better humble ourselves and recognize that, along with that claim, comes a higher responsibility. We will have no excuse when we stand to give an account for our lives that we didn't have access to those truths and the opportunity to live our lives by them. None. Therefore, the claim should produce humility, fear and trembling in a right-minded person and not pride, idle talk and judgement of other individuals. (Addressing false teachings are, of course, another story.)

I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy. I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine. On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West. It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me. The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners. If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

Often Truth is "uncharitable" by your definition. Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life," not "an option out of many."

Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones. Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My apologies, I agree, although even in my Orthodox Study Bible I have in my hand as we speak, uses the word it.

ah, the evils of copyright.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones. Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.

I don't understand, what does Christ's words have to do with anything I said? I absolutely do agree that Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and not one way among many. The idea that the West's sacraments are invalid simple because of mutual antipathy that developed over centuries is not credible to me.

Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones. Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.

I don't understand, what does Christ's words have to do with anything I said? I absolutely do agree that Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and not one way among many. The idea that the West's sacraments are invalid simple because of mutual antipathy that developed over centuries is not credible to me.

Even when the sects that supposedly recognize those sacraments have competing doctrines not held by the early Church or the East for that matter?

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

I never gave a direct quote, are you saying the verse is not about the Holy Spirit? That would go against every commentary, including the commentary in the Orthodox Study Bible that Jesus was clearly referring to the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure if your post is just for information purposes or if you are giving some sort of rebuttle?

Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones. Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.

I don't understand, what does Christ's words have to do with anything I said? I absolutely do agree that Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and not one way among many. The idea that the West's sacraments are invalid simple because of mutual antipathy that developed over centuries is not credible to me.

Even when the sects that supposedly recognize those sacraments have competing doctrines not held by the early Church or the East for that matter?

In Christ,Andrew

btw, the Nestorians in the East are in the same boat as "the West's sacraments" as far as the Church is concerned.

The Vatican doesn't recognize Episcopalian sacraments (except baptism and marriage, but then it recognizes those done by Muslims, Jews, pagans, etc.): is that also from "mutual antipathy"?

« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 01:42:20 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth. 2. It is definitely heretical. 3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.

Yeah, I don't buy 3. Never really have. Probably never will.

Really, I don't really believe in many disembodied universals, although I know we talk in such ways at times, but when people start getting serious about hating them or whatever, I have a bit of pause.

This would go to a thread which I believe Rufus showed up as a nominalist of sorts. Wish he would post more. Guess in the day to day I am also a nominalist of sorts as I believe most people I've encountered are.

Guess in a stupid way, I would agree with Kaestner: Es gibt nichts Gutes ausser: man tut es.* I would agree with the more sinister turn of the expression.

*My dumb attempt to translate it: There is no good, save that which man would.

I am still here lurking. Since all but a couple of the posters I follow have been banned or excommunicated by now, my enthusiasm for posting has died down.

Besides, I've been saving my posts so I can quit the forum exactly when my post count reaches 1337.

As for Severian's post, there's no question that in order to live sanely we have to be able to at least pretend we have different attitudes towards people's abstract attributes than towards the people themselves. I'm actually much more sceptical of the first part of his statement: "I *DO* despise Protestantism."

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth. 2. It is definitely heretical. 3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.

Yeah, I don't buy 3. Never really have. Probably never will.

Really, I don't really believe in many disembodied universals, although I know we talk in such ways at times, but when people start getting serious about hating them or whatever, I have a bit of pause.

This would go to a thread which I believe Rufus showed up as a nominalist of sorts. Wish he would post more. Guess in the day to day I am also a nominalist of sorts as I believe most people I've encountered are.

Guess in a stupid way, I would agree with Kaestner: Es gibt nichts Gutes ausser: man tut es.* I would agree with the more sinister turn of the expression.

*My dumb attempt to translate it: There is no good, save that which man would.

I am still here lurking. Since all but a couple of the posters I follow have been banned or excommunicated by now, my enthusiasm for posting has died down.

Besides, I've been saving my posts so I can quit the forum exactly when my post count reaches 1337.

As for Severian's post, there's no question that in order to live sanely we have to be able to at least pretend we have different attitudes towards people's abstract attributes than towards the people themselves. I'm actually much more sceptical of the first part of his statement: "I *DO* despise Protestantism."

I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy. I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine. On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West. It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me. The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners. If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that.

What confirms that Orthodox don't really believe this is the way they treat other Christian groups...in their actions Orthodox typically show due regard for other Christian confessions.

Now, I have also met a few lunatics who think Catholics are as good as heathens, etc., but it's extremely rare. Maybe in Kosovo that attitude is more prevalent.

When Orthodox preach about being the The Church in an unqualified sense, it is inevitably either part of some race war or a propaganda pitch to get converts.

I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy. I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine. On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West. It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me. The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners. If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that.

What confirms that Orthodox don't really believe this is the way they treat other Christian groups...in their actions Orthodox typically show due regard for other Christian confessions.

Now, I have also met a few lunatics who think Catholics are as good as heathens, etc., but it's extremely rare. Maybe in Kosovo that attitude is more prevalent.

When Orthodox preach about being the The Church in an unqualified sense, it is inevitably either part of some race war or a propaganda pitch to get converts.

I read somewhere that Bishop Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, has said that all Catholics will go to hell?

I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy. I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine. On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West. It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me. The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners. If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that.

I seriously doubt that.

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Even when the sects that supposedly recognize those sacraments have competing doctrines not held by the early Church or the East for that matter?

In Christ,Andrew

Why is it necessary to only hold to doctrines the East holds to? I would submit that the Protestant doctrine of "sola fide" does not in itself make Protestantism a "sect". It is a source of division but then again, so is the Eastern insistence that the hallmark of a true Christian is kissing icons (despite the fact that many old, apostolic churches do not have icons) or subscribing to the theology of St. Gregory Palamas.

In some Protestant groups such as Anglicans, the doctrine of "sola fide" is not necessarily considered a matter one must believe in order to be saved, so its possible to acknowledge that the Roman Catholic or Orthodox understandings of justification have some merit. However, this doesn't mean that "Sola fide" is wrong to teach, it is just a reflection of a generous orthodoxy to credit that the Roman Catholic or Orthodox understandings are also true in their own way. Salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit in man, ultimately trying to describe these things in a systematic way just will not work. However, justification by faith alone is a good explanation to emphasize the fact that people do not earn the forgiveness or love of God.

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

James, while I would agree with you if you had said "Episcopalianism," I do believe that most worldwide Anglicans (outside of ECUSA and British Isles agnosticism) are rather traditional (I believe the largest part is the Africans, who are quite traditional Christians). I have a few good friends among Anglican clergy that are traditional Anglicans and want nothing to do with the pagan pseudo-Christianity found in the large local lot in the US. To be honest with you, I think that a few would become Orthodox if they could keep an Orthodox western rite and not have to go to ROCOR (where they are forced to be on the old calendar) or Antiochians where they are... well, I'll stop there.

I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy. I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine. On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West. It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me. The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners. If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that.

What confirms that Orthodox don't really believe this is the way they treat other Christian groups...in their actions Orthodox typically show due regard for other Christian confessions.

Now, I have also met a few lunatics who think Catholics are as good as heathens, etc., but it's extremely rare. Maybe in Kosovo that attitude is more prevalent.

When Orthodox preach about being the The Church in an unqualified sense, it is inevitably either part of some race war or a propaganda pitch to get converts.

I read somewhere that Bishop Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, has said that all Catholics will go to hell?

If you're right, you should be able to provide a more compelling example than this one.

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth. 2. It is definitely heretical. 3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.

I can understand the surprise, given the nature of this forum and many of the posts here. Most of the heresy comes from people describing themselves as Orthodox, though.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy. I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine. On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West. It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me. The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners. If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

LOL. I hope you find a religion good enough for you that will live up to all your personal preconceptions.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.